Data-driven quality assessment of cycling networks

Abstract

Most planning guidelines for bicycle networks define a consistent set of qualitative criteria. All relevant destinations should be reached by bike in a safe, coherent (i.e., continuous bicycle facilities), direct (i.e., minimal detours), comfortable and attractive way. For transportation planners, few information exist on the degree to which these qualitative criteria are (still) fulfilled for already existing bicycle networks. However, these information are essential for the definition and prioritization of appropriate bicycle infrastructure measures under limited budget. Until now, no standardized methodology for the purely data-driven quantitative assessment of all of these five (and potentially more) qualitative bicycle network criteria exists. This paper develops a data-driven quality assessment methodology for bicycle networks. Based on an extensive literature review of existing guidelines, design manuals and literature on bicycle network planning, a comprehensible set of relevant qualitative criteria for bicycle networks including sub-criteria are defined in detail. For each sub-criterion, possible measurable indicators and data sources are identified as well. Indicators are translated into precise and transparent evaluation scales with a strong foundation. They are based on widely used guidelines and design manuals for bicycle traffic in European countries, especially the ones of pioneer countries for cycling such as the Netherlands. The work differentiates between local indicators of single bicycle facilities (edge-based, e.g., surface quality), route-wide indicators (e.g., travel time ratio) and network-wide indicators (e.g., network density) and integrates these into an overall framework. A methodology is developed that combines and weights several sub-criteria to consolidated scores for each criterion as well as one final overall score for bicycle network quality. Finally, the applicability of the approach is shown within a case study for the city of Munich, Germany. The key findings for Munich’s cycling network are as follows. The cycling network has a medium level of quality, indicating clear potential for improvement. The analysis of sub-criteria revealed that the city of Munich should focus primarily on expanding the main cycling network, on decreasing the number of conflict points and on decreasing the travel time of cyclists.

Bicycle Infrastructure Design Principles in Urban Bikeability Indices: A Systematic Review

“…It is understood that people's standards of what is "acceptable" differ, but the concept of "inclusive design" serves as the foundation for all bicycle infrastructure design principles [3,21]. Cycling-friendly infrastructure must meet five internationally recognized criteria: safety, comfort, attractiveness, directness, and coherence [49,[51][52][53].…”

“…Researchers have found a positive relationship between perceptions of safety and increased cycling [54]. Safety measures for a bicycle include, for example, the type of bicycle infrastructure, motorized traffic speed along a bicycle path, traffic control devices at junctions, street lights for evening and night-time cycling, and buffer space from car parking along the cycle path [35,49].…”

“…Studies and discussions suggest that promoting bicycle use is critical for urban planning and transportation policy [47,48]. Cities and institutes have stressed that bicycle infrastructure design principles are essential elements that play a crucial role in promoting bicycle use [49]. Researchers have developed different tools that can be used to assess a city's or a neighborhood's bikeability-in other words, bicycle friendliness.…”

Evaluating Quality of Service for Bicyclists on Rural Highways: Insights from a Comprehensive User Survey and Mixed-Logit Analysis

“…These approaches have evolved in parallel, as Figure 1 depicts. Researchers have used the terms "level of service", "quality of service", "operational conditions", "suitability", "adequacy", "level of stress", "bikeability", "route choice", or "network quality" interchangeably as denoted in previous literature review papers [29][30][31]. However, the meaning of these terms can differ based on the primary objective of the indicator.…”